NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMIE BOMO AKONJANG, No. 19-71981 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-123-338 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 3, 2021** Phoenix, Arizona Before: W. FLETCHER, MILLER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Ramie Bomo Akonjang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Akonjang’s appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. First, the Board concluded that Akonjang “could not consistently identify which bones were broken” during his alleged capture and beating and “ultimately admitted that he had hurt his ankle,” not his leg as he initially testified. While the immigration judge “consider[ed] it possible that [Akonjang’s] testimony was simply an attempt to narrow down the specific body part that was broken,” the immigration judge rejected that explanation because the inconsistency was similar to “other occasions throughout [Akonjang’s] testimony in which he quickly changed his answer to the questions posed.” Akonjang does not challenge that finding or otherwise attempt to explain this inconsistency. Second, the Board found that Akonjang testified inconsistently about the existence of evidence documenting his broken bones. Akonjang claims that in testifying that such evidence existed, he understood the immigration judge to be asking about evidence of any injuries he sustained. But Akonjang answered “Yes,” in response to the direct question, “Do you have documentary proof that you had bones broken during this 21 day beating you suffered?,” even though he did not. The record does not compel the conclusion that Akonjang testified consistently on this issue. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency need not “interpret the evidence in the manner advocated by” the applicant). The 2 inconsistencies cited by the Board regarding the nature and extent of Akonjang’s injuries carry “substantial weight” and support the adverse credibility finding. Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Third, the Board concluded that Akonjang testified inconsistently by testifying that his uncle knew that Akonjang and his brothers were still alive, before admitting that he did not know whether that was true. Because this testimony concerned “whether his uncle continued to target him,” the Board concluded that it bore “directly on [his] claim.” This finding is supported by substantial evidence, and Akonjang does not contend otherwise. Fourth, the Board did not err in considering the inconsistencies between Akonjang’s testimony and his affidavit ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals